Does a manufacturer of a prescription drug or medical device have a duty to warn a physician of the dangers associated with the product?

There is some logic to those decisions: manufacturers generally do not have special access to information about their competitors products, and such information might be difficult for consumers to evaluate meaningfully. On the other hand, a jury could find it significant that the warnings in this context are not provided directly to the ultimate consumer. Under the learned-intermediary doctrine, "the manufacturer of a prescription drug or medical device does not have a duty to warn the patient of the dangers involved with the product, but instead has a duty to warn the patient's doctor, who acts as a learned intermediary between the patient and the manufacturer." McCombs v. Synthes (U.S.A.) , 277 Ga. 252, 587 S.E.2d 594, 595 (2003). Comparative-risk information that might be meaningless to a layperson could be very important to a physician, or so a jury could find.